Chris Bristow

2 hours ago, David Lifton said:

Chris:  Agreed.  But. . . please correct spelling error: "...if the whole thing..."  etc. DSL

Ha, I hate missing spelling errors!

17 hours ago, Bill Fite said:

Isn't the problem with the melons on a board that the head is attached to the neck and to get an accurate reaction they should have either suspended the melon with string or attached it to a spring?

In other words - any strike on the melon that produces some backspin, like on a cue ball in pool, will cause the melon to roll backwards.

I think those are problems too. I have seen at least one test where the entry is towards the bottom of the melon and that can definitely cause it to roll backwards. The biggest problem imo is Lattimer's lack of credibility.
 In an uncropped version of the ladder film there is a hose running from a tank in the background to somewhere under the ladder. When the explosion happens a section of the hose looks like it is leaking something under pressure. I would not be surprised if the whole thing was rigged with compressed air.
 

In the first clip from Penn and Teller the melon rolls very gently off the rear of the platform. Not easy to see how little  force there is when they cut to slow motion. But as soon as the melon is off the platform it is falling almost straight down.
 

On 5/9/2022 at 1:02 AM, Benjamin Cole said:

May TSBD'ers said their affidavits were garbled. Amos Lee Euins claims he told DPD said he saw a bald man of undetermined race fire from the TSBD, but his affidavit said he saw a white man. In front of WC, Euins stuck to his story. I have always wondered if Euins saw Eladio Del Valle. 

That one is new to me, thanks.

3 hours ago, Benjamin Cole said:

Add on:

 

Many, many witnesses said their affidavits did not match what they actually told the FBI or Dallas Police Department. They were not coerced---what they said was altered after the fact.

Yeah that is another subcategory I am interested in. The ones I can think of are centered around grassy knoll Witnesses. Simmons and I think Dodd and Price on top of the Annex Building. Stories of omissions and coercion go hand-in-hand.

IS THERE A LIST OF WITNESSES WHO CLAIMED TO BE COERCED?
 I will toss out a few.
Rosemarie Willis.  Interviewed by Joe Nick Patoski
"where it becomes real interesting. And we'll continue....

(Rosemary recalls being interrogated later by investigators)

.... .tell you over and over you didn't see what you saw, you didn't hear what you heard. When they asked you what happened, you say, 'I heard a shot from over here, I heard a shot and saw smoke from other here,' and they're going (assumes mean voice), 'No, you didn't. Look at me: you didn't. I'm telling you, you didn't.' Very adamantly and depending who they were talking to, they were very strong about it, they did not want you to tell the truth. It was messing everything up.""
 

Dr Jones being asked by Specter to not continue speaking of a frontal shot. And also the strange explanation for it put forth in the ARRB By Perry that Jones(sheepishly, imo) agrees to.
The TSB stairwell witness who did not see Oswald.

 I think a case could be made for Dr Carrico because flipping 180 degrees 25 years after the event is very odd. Especially since he claimed it was occipital parietal two separate time while under oath and wrote occipital parietal in his notes that day and was photographed showing the O.C. He has not accused anyone of coercion so it would not make the list. Maybe I need two separate lists because there is a lot of strange contrary testimony over the years.
 Feel free to add to the list or supply any corroborating testimony.
 

The 'vapor trial' in Nix 40 always looked to me like a scratch on the film. There are many previous frames that show similar markings. Like a lot of people I considered the pergola to be too close to Zapruder and never took it seriously. Those are just opinions. But after looking at the necessary trajectory of a shot to Connally it would have to pass through not over the pyrocanthus bush.
 The map on the left verifies the dimensions of the bush by bracketing the Willis 5 bush and the Nix view of it against the background. The West map is very accurate. The purple line from Nix shows Connallys location relative to the background at Nix 40. The thin red line from the pergola to Connally shows the trajectory passing the bush near its center. The overhead map shows the trajectory definitely passes over the bush or through it. The question is over, under or thru? I put the math in the last paragraph.
 
 The photo on the right shows the pergola. The little wall that comes in from the left and stops at the pergola is exactly the height of the pedestal at 430.7 HASL. For the pergola shot to clear the bush and hit JC that 2nd window has to be 78" above the top of that little wall. I have not been to the plaza but have tried to estimate the height of the 2nd window from many photographic angles. The distance from the little wall to the 1st window is maybe 32" to 36". The window may be 12" high and the gap between the windows 8". The rifle would be 3" above the window level so the rifle would be no higher than 60" above the pedestal/wall. but to clear the bush it would have to be closer to 78" above the wall according to the trajectory.
  Shooting under the bush would be a little better but is about 6" off the required trajectory. Nix 40 seems to show the vapor trial going over the bush as it is visible. I assume the theory is it went over not under. The first part of the pergola theory is the head shot came from there. That trajectory would clear the top of the bush. Not saying I endorse it. Unless I am way off on the pergola window height the pergola frame 40 theory does not work. The shot would exit the bush at about the height of the red X I put in the Nix 40 frame.

Determining the slope angle requires two assumptions. For Connally's height I start with the HASL at Nix 40. The survey map shows 418.6 for Z frame 313 and I estimate 318.0 at Connally location. Adding 3.5 ft for JC's entrance wound is, imo,  more than fair and likely too high. 418.0 + 3'6" put him at 421.6 HASL.
 The top of the bush is fairly easy to find because it is right next to the pedestal which is 430.7" per the West map. (The West map also matches google Earth when the 3d building option is off.) Multiple images from that day put the top of the bush at at  29" above the pedestal. The top of the front of the bush is 433 HASL. 
Bush is 433 HASL - JC 421.6 HASL = a rise of 11.6 ft. The dist from JC to the front of the bush is 64ft. That gives a slope angle of 10.3 deg. The important part of that is the slope angle causes the trajectory to increase in altitude by 2.17" per foot traveled. The bush is 23' from the pergola door which means the location of the rifle has to be 49" above the top of the bush to clear it. 2.17 rise per inch x 23ft is 49" of rise. Add that to the 29 " bush height above the pedestal and the rilfe has to be 78" above the pedestal for the shot to work.

41 minutes ago, Jeremy Bojczuk said:

Chris Bristow writes:

But what we can assume is that they noticed nothing that struck them as suspicious. We can be sure that the car slowed down, because there are a number of witnesses who said so, and because four home movies show it doing so. But we can't be sure that the car stopped, since only a minority of those witnesses said so, and none of the films show it doing so.

Of course, it's conceivable that the 'slowing-down' witnesses saw the car stop but didn't think it was worth mentioning. But it's also conceivable that the 'car-stop' witnesses were mistaken, especially as some of them were not consistent in claiming that the car stopped.

Yes: the car slowed down but didn't stop, which is exactly what all the home movies show.

As I pointed out, two of the four cops were not consistent. Each claimed that the car both stopped and didn't stop:

• Hargis: "the Presidential car slowed down. ... the Presidential car stopped almost immediately after that." And "[the car] slowed down almost to a stop."
• Chaney: "from the time the first shot rang out, the car stopped completely, pulled to the left and stopped." And "the automobile came to — almost came to a complete halt after the first shot — did not quite stop, but almost did."

The question is: which of their statements are more likely to be correct? It's a simple matter of weighing up the evidence for and against. A few witnesses claimed that the car stopped, but no films show that the car stopped. A larger number of witnesses claimed that the car merely slowed down, and four films show that the car merely slowed down. There's no contest.

Chaney's claim that the car "pulled to the left and stopped" is also contradicted by those four home movies and at least two photos. The Moorman photo and the Altgens 7 photo show that the car had not "pulled to the left" during the shooting; the Altgens 7 photo actually shows that the car moved to the right, not the left. No photos or home movies, as far as I'm aware, show the car in the left-hand lane. We can be certain that that part of Chaney's claim is incorrect.

Exactly! Home movies do not, as a general rule, get maliciously altered. If someone is claiming that even one home movie was maliciously altered, let alone four of them, the onus is on them to prove it. It's an enormous hurdle to overcome, and no-one has yet come close to doing so.

If it were just a matter of X number of witnesses said this and Y number of witnesses said that, one could argue that either group could have been correct. But when you consider that one group of witnesses can only have been correct if four home movies were altered (and maybe a couple of photos too), that claim becomes far more difficult to accept. Until someone comes up with proof that the four films were altered, the claim is worthless.

That difficulty increases further when you consider these facts:

• The Zapruder film contradicts the lone-gunman theory, a fact that somewhat undermines the notion that the film was altered to support that theory.
• There appears to be nothing in the film that unambiguously supports the lone-gunman theory (as we've seen on another current thread).
• Almost all of the claims for alteration rely on nothing more than amateurish anomaly-spotting (back-to-front cars, Phil Willis's extra-long leg, and other similar nonsense).
• People have been searching for around 30 years, and no-one has come close to demonstrating the sort of proof of alteration that would satisfy a reasonable, open-minded person.

Most every argument you make ignores the circumstances of the event. As I have said a limo moving as slow as 1/2 mph with a momentary stop could result in the types of witness stories we have. This would explain why many did not report a stop. All it would take to miss the stop is a person looking around after hearing two shots or turning their head for a split second to say something about it.
Trying to discount the bike cops stories by ignoring the circumstances is more than unreasonable. I think it shows you are more concerned with maintaining your pov than accepting the point for what it is worth.
 The basis of the CT is about alteration. Claiming the films as proof requires accepting that they are not altered. But of course that is the basis of the issue. If we all agreed the film can't be faked then this thread and the limo stop subject would never have existed. Even if I consider the films may be impossible to fake it would be an illogical leap to say the films prove something when it the films authenticity that is in question.

 "A larger number of witnesses claimed that the car merely slowed down,"
 Did they say "merely" or "only slowed a little" or "barley slowed"? You are taking liberties with the meaning of their statements. Altgens said it did not stop(I think), but unless the "large number" specifically contradicted the limo slowing down to a crawl they are just ambiguous. Again, all it takes is to look away for a second or be freaked about about seeing his head explode. 

On the 4 points below.
1. Maybe they could only take out the limo stop and put a black patch on his head. Maybe changing his motion to forward and to the left instead of back and to the left was too hard to fake. Manipulating a human figure realistically could be much harder than speeding up the limo. That is just my thoughts on it. We can only speculate on this.
2. I would speculate again and say maybe they were just trying to take out the stop because it looked incriminating. Should we expect they would have changed the film to "unambiguously support the lone-gunman theory"? Maybe if they could get away with it but all we can do is create more conjecture. We don't know what they were capable of or what they thought needed to be altered.  Maybe they already dreamed up the jet effect/ muscular spasm theories and thought that would be the better way to handle it. Maybe because lots of witnesses would have a very specific horrible memory of that moment and know very well which way he moved.  WHO KNOWS? All we can do is fabricate theories and debate our conjecture. I don't think it gets us very far.
3. This 50 year old murder mystery is the most popular whodunit of the last century. Everybody want to weigh in on a whodunit so of course there is a mountain of theories out there. The size of the mountain is not a measure of what truth may lie at the bottom of it.
4. Yes but how many experts have been allowed to inspect the original film? Mr Zavada is one. Is there a half dozen others? If not, why not? I really don't know.

• The Zapruder film contradicts the lone-gunman theory, a fact that somewhat undermines the notion that the film was altered to support that theory.
• There appears to be nothing in the film that unambiguously supports the lone-gunman theory (as we've seen on another current thread).
• Almost all of the claims for alteration rely on nothing more than amateurish anomaly-spotting (back-to-front cars, Phil Willis's extra-long leg, and other similar nonsense).
• People have been searching for around 30 years, and no-one has come close to demonstrating the sort of proof of alteration that would satisfy a reasonable, open-minded person.

13 hours ago, Jeremy Bojczuk said:

Chris Bristow writes:

Yes, we absolutely should not expect witnesses to have perfect recollections of a sudden, unexpected and traumatic event. Far too much trust has been placed in anomalous witness statements in this and other areas of the JFK assassination.

But that doesn't entitle us to assume that all the witnesses who didn't mention a car-stop were mistaken. A large majority, around 80%, of the witnesses who would have been in a position to notice a car stop didn't mention any such event. Is that percentage significant? Should we expect 80% of witnesses to miss something like that? I don't know. If anyone is claiming that 80% of a group of witnesses were mistaken, that claim needs to be demonstrated. That's where the burden of proof rests here.

The pertinent fact is that a small number of statements claimed that the car stopped, while a larger number claimed that the car merely slowed down. Both groups cannot be correct. All other factors being equal, the larger group is more likely to be correct.

Add to that the fact that four home movies show the car at around the time of the head shot, and none of them show it stopping. To claim that the car stopped, it's necessary to claim that all four films were altered. That's something else that needs to be demonstrated. Until someone does so, there's no good reason to suppose it happened.

They weren't consistent. Two of the four made statements denying that the car stopped:

• Hargis: "slowed down almost to a stop"
• Chaney: "almost came to a complete halt after the first shot — did not quite stop, but almost did."

• The other two weren't exactly positive about an obvious stop:

• Martin: the car stopped "just for a moment."
• Jackson: "the car just all but stopped ... just a moment."

The bike cops were just as inconsistent as most witnesses to the assassination. Witnesses who claimed that the car both stopped and didn't stop are not good evidence for a car stop.

"But that doesn't entitle us to assume that all the witnesses who didn't mention a car-stop were mistaken. A large majority, around 80%, of the witnesses who would have been in a position to notice a car stop didn't mention any such event."
 
We can't assume those witnesses saw no stop or extreme slowing just because they did not mention it. You would need ask them if they saw a stop and if they say no then you have something. As we have established, the event would have happened in the seconds following the head shot and many witnesses were far from the event. Not mentioning a stop and saying there was no stop are not the same. you mentioned the witnesses on Huston and at the TSB were farther away and their testimony is less valuable. Did you apply that to the 80% as well?
 As I said before and it deserves repeating, If the car slowed to almost a stop then we would expect some to miss the moment when it stopped. Trying to discredit the bike cops testimony for very slight differences in their accounts is not a valid argument. The difference between a full stop and rolling stop could be as little as 1/2 mph and 1 second. You ignore the implications of a limo that may have slowed to almost a stop. Some witnesses saying it stopped and others saying it almost stopped is very consistent for a event where the car slowed to almost a stop.

"

• Hargis: "slowed down almost to a stop"
• Chaney: "almost came to a complete halt after the first shot — did not quite stop, but almost did."

• The other two weren't exactly positive about an obvious stop:

• Martin: the car stopped "just for a moment."
• Jackson: "the car just all but stopped ... just a moment.""
   
  "almost to a stop".
  "almost came to a complete halt"
  "the car just all but stopped"
  
    3 out of 4 are undeniably consistent and ignoring this shows a large bias on your part. Martin saying it stopped could easily be due to the limo only stopping for a split second, or maybe it got down to 1/2 mph and Martin mistakenly thought it stopped. All this is what you would expect if it slowed to almost a stop which is what was reported by people very close to the limo.
   You should be able to maintain your opinion and still acknowledge the consistency of the bike cops reports. It does not mean you think they were right but denying it shows that you are not honest about their testimony. It is beyond the pale for you to try and say they were inconsistent.
   The best argument against alteration is the problems associated with altering multiple films. It took me several years of pondering the Z film alteration theory to find a plausible way to take out a limo stop. The Nix film has it's own set of problems because people like Foster were in between Nix and the limo. That would mean alteration would require a lot of cut and pasting to take out a limo stop. I don't know exactly what it would take to fix the Nix film and others but I have not ruled it out.
       I try and look at the issue with an open mind but so much of the debate is simply people entrenched in their view and unwilling to honestly evaluate the evidence. I have to say your view on the bike cops testimony is slanted to the point that, imo  you are not willing to engage in fair discussion.

16 hours ago, Jeremy Bojczuk said:

Ron Bulman writes:

That's three claims you need to demonstrate, not merely assert.

What evidence is there that the turn was eliminated? What was so incriminating about the turn that it would have required the film to be altered?

What evidence is there that the car stopped? That claim has been debunked here, several times. See, for example, this thread:

https://educationforum.ipbhost.com/topic/27114-what-prevented-dulles-angleton-from-destroying-the-zapruder-film/?do=findComment&comment=441219

A small number of witnesses claimed that the car stopped, while a larger number claimed that the car merely slowed down. Why should we believe the smaller number over the larger number? The witness evidence is collected and analysed here:

http://22november1963.org.uk/did-jfk-limo-stop-on-elm-streetI

I read the article on the limo stop and witness accounts. I am trying to be fair but there are some points that I think are a stretch.  In general witnesses can be unreliable but when they tell a consistent story it is likely correct. The well known account of a classroom experiment in which students witnessed an unexpected event then gave their accounts right afterwards showed 30% of them got the facts wrong. This is cited as proof we can't trust witness accounts. But 70% got it right and that is where corroborating testimony becomes valuable.
 I think if we consider that the stop or almost stopping would have happened at the head shot or just after we should assume that many of the witnesses were absolutely stunned during the event. I think it would be no surprise if many witnesses never noticed a slowing to maybe 2mph or a momentary full stop. 
 Within the limo I think Jackie was focused on JFK at that moment and watching his head explode inches from her face could be why she did not notice a brief stop. Nellie Connally was focused on Gov Connally and he was seriously wounded. They both rolled over and down and laid low around the theorized stop so they could have missed it. The lack of testimony has a logical possible explanation so the point, imo, is moot..
 When it comes to Greer and Kellerman I think because we are discussing the possibility of a coverup I can fairly postulate that they and the SS in the follow up car would not be forthcoming about a stop if it was removed as it may tend to implicate them.
 Another argument that I find to be a stretch is witness that said it stopped and those that said it slowed are contradicting each other. If there was a full stop that was just momentary we should expect many to miss it since it would have happened in a moment of confusion for all who saw his head explode.
 Many witnesses said the limo 'stopped or almost stopped'. This indicates the limo slowing to such a slow speed that many were not sure if it fully stopped or just slowed way down. That would have to be around 2mph. So some saying it just slowed and others seeing a full stop is not necessarily mean one story is wrong. There are approx 9 people who were specific enough in their account to say it stopped or almost stopped.  People like Brehm, Newman?, Willis, Hill and  Moorman were very close to the limo and their testimony should be considered valuable.
 Then there are the 4 bike cops. I think theirs is the most credible and important testimony. A big part of their job was to keep pace with the limo throughout the entire parade. They were ordered to stay back a bit because of the noise so they were constantly monitoring the limo speed and position relative to themselves. They were the closest and they were paying more attention to the limo than anyone else except Kinney. They ALL say the limo stopped. They saw more than just the slowing they say they saw a brief full stop. All 4 of them corroborating each others account is huge when we consider they were in the best position of any witness and were all paying close attention to the limo.
  I do not think the explanations offered in that article make a convincing argument against the witness accounts.

7 hours ago, John Butler said:

Chris,

Witness testimony or a first hand report is considered direct evidence.  This is from the net, "Direct evidence is often used in court terminology to describe evidence that straightforwardly supports the guilt or innocence of a person on trial. Unlike circumstantial evidence, which asks the judge or jury to infer reasonable conclusions, this form of evidence can stand on its own, and does not require any presumption. Video, tape recordings, and some types of witness testimony can be used as direct evidence to support a claim." 

Thanks for that. I had learned that once and forgot it.

10 hours ago, Chris Davidson said:

How much of that motion blur was determined by the following relationship?

18.3fps/35shutter speed = .522 ratio

48fps/100shutter speed = .48 ratio

 

I  did not correct from 1/40th to 1/35 so I would need to subtract about 12% from the amount of relative motion blur between background and limo. As far the ratio I am just noting the difference in shutter speeds and the resulting difference in the amount of motion blur of 1/35 sec shutter speed vs 1/100 in any single frame. As I said before this subject is a challenge to envision so I may be misunderstanding some of the points you and others trying to make.

 I realized something today. Although I can get a slowing limo to appear in each frame as if it traveled at 8 mph by altering the location of the limo there would still be a motion blur problem. When I start to insert original frames (6,8,10,13) they will have less motion blur because the limo was moving slower and slower in the hypothetical film, By frame 13 it would be slowed to 2mph showing far less motion blur.  All the frames inserted after hypothetical fr 13 would also show only 2 mph speed and the blur would be inconsistent with the created illusion of the limo continuing at 7 mph.
The altering process would now have to include some cut and paste work to the frames in question. Maybe 50 frames would have the background cut and motion blur added, then re pasted back to the frame. Not really too difficult but another step. I suspect as we spitball this theory it may get to complicated to be realistic. But so far it looks workable.

4 hours ago, David G. Healy said:

 It may surprise some, but rumors exist of case film/photo shenanigans back in the 60's immediately after the Warren Commission Report in 1964 ... and when more case evidence was dissected, specifically the Elm Street events were scrutinized, the conspiracy angle got real legs --

The added photo/film evidence disputes may be simple to understand *create a unique diversion,* with debate? Reason: divert attention to anything other than the case medical evidence.

So, here's the problem: The medical evidence/autopsy evidence regarding this case are a royal mess, everywhere and the WC knew it... so did a few others, notable medical experts. The photographic evidence is an important, yes, but a non-critical sideshow...

I find the Parkland issue to be the most convincing circumstantial evidence. In fact the JFK issue for me can all come down to a second shooter and a coverup. That means it could be Oswald on the 6th floor. Partial patsy, full patsy, innocent, I don't need to bother with it to consider the basic form of the CT. I would guess partial patsy but it is just my guess. Pondering how a film could be altered is the most entertaining thought experiment, imo.
 

36 minutes ago, Chris Davidson said:

Different for the slow-motion setting:

Oh thank you! So the shutter speed is just short of 3 times longer in the 'run' setting. We should see 3 times the motion blur at 1/35th  between background and foreground than the 1/100th slow motion. The overall film supports the 18.6 fps. The limo would have to be going almost 3 times as fast as the 'official' record to achieve the motion blur between foreground and background.
 Frame 232 has half the blur as pointed out by John Costella. Is that an artifact of a different frame rate? If it is there still has to be another film that produced the 18.6 fps version. I want to lean towards a simpler explanation that does not require two films if possible.

5 hours ago, David G. Healy said:

re the above: if, there was NO second camera on the pedestal, then might I advance something obvious, Zapruder shot a pan down Elm St. from the pedestal himself, 15-20 seconds before the limo arrived in Dealey Plaza...

the curb down Elm? So? That issue (?) will be covered for the most part by a layer above it, ie., original asphalt footage of the motorcade going down Elm St.

and, separate matte artists from a physical film matte black/white overlay of film frame(s). Same for glass artists. A glass artist adds to whats within the confines of a frame, the only restriction is the outer edges of the glass itself, its all art for them. Matte artist adds or deletes components and structures the frame to appear natural with frame-to-frame continuity.

Here's the main problem Z-alteration advocates face, we/they have no idea what version of Z-film they are reviewing, disassembling, re-altering. Assumptions are being made, best case film scenario(s) based on what?

There's a damn good reason as to why nearly no-one can get authentication and verification of Zapruder film prints they are working with. "The in-camera original Zapruder Film is at NARA or the 6th Floor Museum, we taxpayers paid $16 million bucks for that piece of celluloid and derive no benefits and/or no access, PERIOD. And with out THAT, Z-film researchers are just making noise, sometimes very loud noise as we did in 2001-2005/6/7... In fact, most of us on the possible alteration side of things were invited here by John Simkin in 2004... the debates are over, books written, the bells and whistles fading -- but the Kennedy Assassination itself lingers like a very dark cloud... as such we can only dig deeper in search of resolution...

Over the years I have learned there are those that have access close to first day 3 Z-film dupes #0185,6,7 of the "alleged" Zapruder Film #0183. Find #0184. Lest we're stuck with: as Gary Mack so eloquently told me well before his passing, "the in-camera original Zapruder Film will never, EVER appear in a court of law again." He's probably correct... that leaves the original 3 Jamisen film dupes... and maybe, maybe that old camera original isn't just sitting at the bottom of a landfill someplace...

Have a good one, pssst! The *other* Chris, Chris Davidson, did the math on the Z-film and covered a lot of bases, hell of an asset... and understand Adobe After Effects, that software literally, nearly wiped out the "optical film houses" in NYC, Hollywood, Chicago, San Francisco and the rest of America. Prior to Adobe ownership it was called COSA After Effects, it mimicked aerial image printing. bi-pack, and the entire film special effects film printing medium in 1993/4, learn how to use it and you'll have access to the entire, Hollywood film special effects secrets...  nothing is IMPOSSIBLE...

here's a simple defining statement of AAE: "After Effects can be used for keying, tracking, compositing, and animation..." Wikipedia

 

Yes you mentioned the additional panning by Z and it is an interesting possibility.
"the curb down Elm? So? That issue (?) will be covered for the most part by a layer above it, ie., original asphalt footage of the motorcade going down Elm St."
  I don't know if I get you on this. I mentioned before that the angle of the curb to Z increases as they move down Elm. Looking again I see it changes a lot right after 312 when the curb is nearly perpendicular to Z but much less from frame 350 on. So it is less of a problem than I thought.
 Not knowing what may have been altered and how much leaves us guessing. Like just how much did the limo slow, how long did it last and how quickly did it decelerate. I thought it would be interesting to make an 8mm film of a vehicle mimicking the limo stop, then take that 8mm film and see if the stop can be removed, what it would take and how real might it look. It may reveal the problems and possibly the type of artifacts the process may leave.

6 hours ago, Chris Davidson said:

What shutter speed are you using?

I use 1/40th sec. I think  it is a little less but close enough. The relative blur between foreground and background is consistent with the limo moving  around 9mph at frame 312. If the frame rate increases to 48 fps the dist the limo traveled would be reduced by 2.5 times and so would the motion blur. As I imagine this the distance the limo travels could be adjusted by frame removal. So we could get the limo to move at 9 mph but that would not change the motion blur recorded in each single frame which would still be related to the 48 fps rate.
 

8 hours ago, David G. Healy said:

tremendous amount of work you've done here. I commend you. I took the liberty to highlight a section above. Here is another possible, quite simple solution to the above. Another camera on the pedestal. Or, the Zap camera shooting an additional piece of footage immediately after the lead car drove down Elm Street. Why then? There was nothing on Elm Street except asphalt for 10-15 seconds... (makes no difference what's on the curbs or grass, unless the limo ends up there, then all bets are off for editing a film). An empty Elm Street, same kind of camera (B&H), same film stock, same lighting, same iris opening, same film speed, very same angle to the street... but, zoom out some to be comfortable and not make a mistake. Do a pan down Elm Street only from curb to curb with a little breathing room. You've had the lead car go through, you know roughly what the limo speed will be (so you know how to pan down the street and how fast). Plenty of loaded film... When the pan is complete snap back to the top of Elm Street, zoom all the way in (full tight), roll film, and pick up the lead car turn onto Elm Street, hold and follow the limo down Elm... the rest as they say, "take care of it in post!" 

There is one thing left... some material(s) are going to extend over the south curb... thats where artistry comes in...

Z filming extra footage is an interesting thought. A second camera has been mentioned somewhere but if it was only one foot away from Z's camera it would have a very different line of sight. The wall behind the Stemmons would appear off by more than 2 feet. Maybe mixing the two would work depending on where they meet. One additional problem with a matte is the curb appears almost level across the frame around 312 but constantly changed as he panned down Elm. That would be another mis match to be addressed.
 I had considered that if you re filmed the background on the weekend of 1/20/64 around roughly 10:30am the azimuth and elevation would match 11/22 at 12:30.
 

22 hours ago, Paul Bacon said:

This is fascinating Chris.  Do you think, using the method you've described, it would have been an easier thing to pull off if the Z film was being taken at 48 fps?

I just realized that if it was filmed at 48 fps the open shutter time would be about 40% of what we see in the film. But the motion blur in the film is consistent with 18 fps.

11 hours ago, Paul Bacon said:

This is fascinating Chris.  Do you think, using the method you've described, it would have been an easier thing to pull off if the Z film was being taken at 48 fps?

If you had 48 fps to work with it would tighten the timing up a lot. In my graphic frame 8 from above is used to replace frame 6 below, but there is a 2 inch difference between them. I thought that may be small enough to go unnoticed but maybe not. But if you had 48 fps to work with that 2" difference could be cut down to about .8 seconds difference.

One thing I forgot to mention is a possible trick to help with a matte process. If you took the frames and magnified them slightly to simulate more zooming effect you would would have a little extra background image that does not appear in the frame. You could use that for the extra background needed for the matte. That fixes the problem of the extra background having to match in motion blur because the extra background is from the same frame and will always be a perfect match. You would only need to increase the zoom by one or two degrees to get the 3 inches of background needed for the first 3 frames of the deceleration.

The problems with using a matte or just cutting frames are many. But I have a possible method to overcome most of the problems of mattes and frame removal by combining them.
 The problems with mattes is they place the limo against a background that will be a mis match. The wrong angle to the limo would be easily spotted, the reflection on the trunk would not match(Like Mary Moorman or the paristyles behind her) and neither would the shadows. It could be somewhat fixed with additional mattes but not everything, imo. When you have to make the background pass by faster to simulate speed you add some future frame image to the current frame. If you do make the background move faster you are mixing backgrounds from different frames that would have to have the exact same level of motion blur to mix together. Also if you take a film that has the limo going by people like Foster at 2mph and modify it to 8 mph the relative motion blur between the limo and background will be off.
Removing frames can help some but it cannot be used for the slowing down phase. Slowing the limo by half is easy but you can't slow it by 1/4 for a gradual deceleration. As an example: Say you took one of every 4 frames out to slow it by 1/4, it would not work. The limo would still go it's normal speed for frames 1,2,3 and if you cut the 4th out it would suddenly double its speed for one frame when it jumped from frame 3 to frame 5. Then it would slow down again for frames 5,6,7.

 I have been looking at mixing some matte work with frame removal and there is a way to minimize the problems. The top part of the chart tracks the hypothetical limo as it slows though 13 frames. it slow from 8 to 2 mph over 13 frames. That means is travels 1/2 inch less distance every frame as it slows. 8" then 7.5", them 7" etc. That is the 1st row figures. The 2nd row keeps a running tally of how many inches the limo progresses from 1 to 13. In box 13 it shows the limo traveled 57".
 Below all that is another set of 13 frames. This set shows how far the limo would travel if it never slowed and continued at 8 mph or 8" per frame(approx). The next row down is again a running tally of distance traveled. Notice box 13 above shows 57" of travel and the box below shows 96" travel. The slowing limo travels 39 " less and that is what needs to be made up in order to alter the limo speed back to 8 mph.
 Looking at the bottom set frames 1-4 are marked "Background matte size. Those 1st frames can be altered by  shifting the background 1/2, 1.5 and 3 inches respectively. That neutralizes the deceleration and increases the speed back to 8 mph with the matte mismatch being only 3 inches. Now for the next frame no matte is needed. Frame 5 in the bottom section(The alteration attempt) would have advanced the limo 32.5 inches down the road. Well in the top set frame 6 has also advanced the limo 32.0" down the road. To fix frame 5 in the lower set we only need to replace it with frame 6 from the upper set. Frame 6 from above is not from a matte so the background and limo are back in their true positions. The matte induced mis match would continue to increase if continued and the problems would get worse. But using the hypothetical original frames that showed a limo stop fixes the matte problems. Frames 8, 10 and 13 from above would also be used.
 Once we use frame 13 from above we are using frames in which the limo travels 2 mph from frame to frame. If, as in this scenario the limo proceeded at 2 mph for a couple seconds than the frames after 13 will all represent 2 mph speed. So all you have to do then is take out 3 out of every 4 frames from the top and use them for the frames after frame 8 below. when you take out 3 out of every 4 you always have 3 frames removed between each one. So unlike taking every 4th frame, taking 3 out of 4 makes each frame 3 frames from the last so the limo does  not jump around like it would taking one out of 4.
 This stuff is a nightmare to try and visualize but I hope it is clear enough to get the point across. I have not puzzled out the acceleration back to normal speed yet, but this method would only require matting 3 frames and removing 4 frames for the deceleration part. The frame removal would only require two consecutive frames to be removed and two more single frames.

 
 

4 hours ago, John Butler said:

I have watched the whole Clint/Jackie frames in Zapruder one frame at a time.  I don't see the scene, No. 2 in Nix, at all in Zapruder.  Scene No. 2 in Nix has Clint grasping Jackie's arm high in the air above the trunk.

I didn't see that in Zapruder.  I have went through the frames twice.  I will do that a third time and see if anything changes.

What I see is this.

I don't think this is parallax viewing.  Nix has different frames then Zapruder.  Zapruder lacks the Nix frame showing Jackie's arm in the air clutched by Clint.  

 

John, It's ok to criticize and we can go over each point. I forgot to say that the test was only about how far back her body is on the trunk and about her right elbow appearing lower in Nix. I could not get the left arm to articulate so it just sticks out. It is not part of the test.
 I think the left arm you point to in Nix by Jackie's head could be a film artifact of her hair image being  smeared right. Or more likely it is her hair blowing, the color match seems perfect. You can see the shape change over several frames. Her left arm may be the shadow just behind her right upper arm. Z shows she has all her weight on her left elbow and so could not reach up with the left arm.
 Just to make sure everyone understands, the two photos are the same set up photographed from the Nix and Z viewpoints matching both degree of angle and elevation. It is not two separate versions made to match each film.
    We don't see Hills right arm reaching out because it doesn't start till around frame 380 to 385, after the frames I used.
 I wanted to make two points in the recreation. first, the position of her right hand relative to the handholds matches in both Z and Nix. Second, her head and torso match Nix and Z relative to the view of the handholds.
 Overall you can see the recreation makes Jackie look like she is much farther out on the trunk in Nix than in Z. But the wooden Jackie is the same position in the Z as in the Nix recreations. Only the perspective has changed and that does recreate the two different apparent positions of Jackie on the trunk.

Here's a recreation of Jackie on the trunk in Nix and Z. If not conclusive I think it shows the different angles and elevation of Nix and Z's camera's can account for the apparent variation in Jackie's location.
 I had to edit the recreations a bit because I made the limo too wide for Jackie's size, it is now accurate.
 Her forearm is low on the trunk in the Nix view but may be perceived as higher from Z's perspective. First her elbow is pointed away from Z so we see no angle at the elbow to judge it's height above the trunk. The only way to know the elbow height from Z's view is to make an assumption about where her elbow is. The only clue is the crease in her clothing at the elbow or the smaller look of the sleeve at the elbow. Two problems with that. first the bright background of the street shrinks the sleeve on the sides. Second the crease maybe the elbow but the images is very blurry.
 I think the crease position in the Z recreation is at the same place as the actual Z frame. The forearm and upper arm seem to match the recreation.
  The point of the diagram at the bottom is to show where Jackie's head would line up with the handholds, red for Nix and blue fro Z.
 

On 3/27/2022 at 5:26 AM, Adam Johnson said:

Hi Chris,

Somebody posted the drain layouts and details along with some photos inside the north knoll drain, plus some other pics of the drains as it led back to the trinity river on Robert Harris's jfk assassination website years ago,  I'm sure i saved the photos on an old laptop but where that is now I'm not sure....

You could get right up under the plaza all the way to the court house building and beyond thru the underground drain system apparently. That was featured on some 80's tv special. I remember watching and being amazed. Footage must be out there somewhere. 

From memory the Elm Street drain where the manhole cover was on the sidewalk had a much smaller size opening (approximately 10 to 12 inches in diameter) for its water run off pipe. The opening up on the grassy knoll drain was 2 feet or more in diameter. 

Was it likely to have been used as an escape route??? Probably not, but was it possible....in my opinion yes!

Try and find the Cabluck photo i mentioned.....there are two versions.....but only 1 was available up until 2005 or 2006, now that version has disappeared and a new one exists. Robin Unger may be able to help.

Regards Adam 

Thanks. If the Elm St pipe was only 12 inches the shooter in the drain theory is factually disproven.

16 hours ago, Andrej Stancak said:

Chris's scenario of a shooter stashing the rifle into the trunk of a car standing feet away from the shooter appears a plausible solution of GK shooter's escape problem. Josiah Thompson in his last book "Last second in Dallas" suggested the same scenario, proposing that the car stayed until evening of that fateful Friday.

However, how can this scenario be reconciled with the testimony of deaf-mute witness Ed Hoffman? Hoffman saw a well dressed man, possibly the shooter, to hand over the rifle to a man dressed like a railroad man, and that man knocked down and hid the rifle, and walked away in direction across railroad tracks. Did Hoffman invent his story? Nobody has confirmed Hoffman's version, yet this does not mean it was made up. 

 

 

 

I don't what to make of Hoffman's story. Two shooters on the east and west end fence? Maybe he filled in the gaps of his observation and can't distinguish fact from fantasy?  How does the shooter or spotter cross the tracks just feet from the overpass crowd and not be seen?
 Maybe Tom Tilson was right and the shooter was on the northwest corner of the overpass and Hoffman just mistook their position. I think there is some truth in Hoffman's account but I don't know which part.